> -----Original Message-----
> From: MikeSatterlee@cs.com [mailto:MikeSatterlee@cs.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 2:07 PM
> To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org.
> Subject: Re: Adam as head + two creation accounts
> AT: Thanks for clarifying your position. How do
> you understand
> John 6 about
> Jesus insisting that they had to eat his flesh and drink his
> blood? Also in
> the context of the last supper, when he said, "This is my body...."?
> I'm not sure what your point is. I did not say that I
> understand every
> passage in the Bible literally. I said I understand Genesis 1
> Obviously there are many passages of scripture which were not
> meant to be
> understood in an entirely literal way. Many passages were
> certainly meant to
> be understood metaphorically, allegorically or symbolically.
> I don't believe
> Genesis 1 was. But that is just my opinion.
Mike, my point of acking that question is to try to understand your
criteria for deciding if a particular passage is to be read literally
or not. I may be wrong, but I suspect some inconsistency there.
> You don't have to be fluent in Hebrew to understand the point
> I was making.
> All you have to do is read Gen. 1:29 in a literal
> translation. A "literal"
> translation is one which does not change the content of the
> Hebrew or Greek
> in order to create more natural sounding English sentences.
> Such translations
> are often hard to read. Their goal is total accuracy rather
> than readability.
> All the translations you quoted are not "literal" translations.
Do you speak another nonEuropean language other than English? I do
(Chinese), and I can tell you that literal word-for-word translation
more often than not tend to mess up the intended meaning of the
BTW, I've read that modern scholars have argued that the Gen 2
creation account (Yahwist) is actually OLDER than the Gen 1 account
(Priestly). What do you make of that?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 03 2002 - 14:06:55 EDT